Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court will take up gay marriage cases (In Late March)
Fox News ^ | 12/07/2012 | Shannon Bream and AP

Posted on 12/07/2012 12:34:14 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan

Edited on 01/07/2013 10:04:55 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; notbreakingnews; scotus; ssm; statesrights; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

1 posted on 12/07/2012 12:34:22 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 12/07/2012 12:36:34 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Get ready for more cultural destruction.

We already know how Sotomayor and Kagan will vote.


3 posted on 12/07/2012 12:36:43 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Prediction: SCOTUS will sell-out America again. Gay will become the law of the land.


4 posted on 12/07/2012 12:36:48 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan


5 posted on 12/07/2012 12:36:57 PM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
6 posted on 12/07/2012 12:40:32 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

this will also make same sex spouses eligible for benefits of federally employed spouses...including the military

ladies and gentleman the financial benefits have been the goal all along


7 posted on 12/07/2012 12:40:54 PM PST by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

5-4 with Roberts ruling with the Liberal Justices in support of gay marriage. He’ll find a rationale under the governments authority to tax.


8 posted on 12/07/2012 12:41:46 PM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Considering this issue could made Chief Justice Roberts uncomfortable at DC parties, we know how he will be ruling or “helping out” the arguments.


9 posted on 12/07/2012 12:41:52 PM PST by Vision (Obama is king of the "Takers." Don't be a "Taker.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Well, at least we’ll have the gay issues put to bed, so to speak. We’ll know if the people actually have the right to decide what laws they will live under or if the law will be what the aristocrats and oligarchs decide it will be and nothing else, the people’s opinons as expressed through referenda or their legislatures notwithstanding.


10 posted on 12/07/2012 12:42:50 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I wouldn’t be shocked at all if they pass fruitcake marriage and make it legal. Nothing the Supreme Court does surprises me anymore. After Roberts showed what a douche bag he is nothing they do would shock me


11 posted on 12/07/2012 12:43:03 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse
I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

Oh, he'll go much further than that. He'll have the "Justice" department sue companies for discrimination if they don't hire "enough" gay people.

12 posted on 12/07/2012 12:46:49 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse
I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

Sadly, I fear the you're correct. I'm expecting a 'Roe v Wade' style decision inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. It'll be the law of the land 'whether you like it or not,' as Gavin Newsom once said. I have faith in only three Justices to stand in opposition: Scalia, Thomas and Alito. It's possible Kennedy or Roberts will join, but I have zero confidence that we'll get both of 'em.
13 posted on 12/07/2012 12:48:01 PM PST by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I guess we can count of Roberts saying it will be a grand idea that homos marry.


14 posted on 12/07/2012 12:48:35 PM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Do they have a right to "marriage" as has been universally defined since the beginning.....No....

They are entitled to "live together" as homos....being the same right shared by unmarried heteros. That's where the equality lies and the only logic I can see.

Marriage is man and woman.

15 posted on 12/07/2012 12:49:05 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
5-4 with Roberts ruling with the Liberal Justices in support of gay marriage.

Roberts will not matter because Kennedy on this issue with vote with the liberal justices. Kennedy will be the fifth vote.

16 posted on 12/07/2012 12:52:46 PM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“We already know how Sotomayor and Kagan will vote.”

We also know how Roberts will vote.

All three should recuse themselves from judging this case.


17 posted on 12/07/2012 12:56:58 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler

“It’s possible Kennedy or Roberts will join, but I have zero confidence that we’ll get both of ‘em.”

Actually, we probably lose both of them.

Roberts did pro bono work on the Roemer homosexual marriage case.

Kennedy wrote the despicable Lawrence v. Texas decision—enshrining a sacred constitutional right of sodomy.


18 posted on 12/07/2012 12:58:18 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

IIRC, 7 of the Justices are Catholic.


19 posted on 12/07/2012 12:58:57 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse
I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

My prediction: (1) Proposition 8 will be upheld, 5-4, with both Roberts and Kennedy in the majority (i.e., no constitutional right to gay marriage), but (2) DOMA will be held unconstitutional, also by a 5-4 vote (Kennedy in the majority, Roberts dissenting) on the ground that the federal government must recognize as legally married any couple who are legally married under the laws of their home state. Kennedy will justify his switch by saying the DOMA case presents a states-rights issue.

20 posted on 12/07/2012 1:01:11 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

(gulp)
I really hate to see anything of importance going to the Supreme Court these days now that the court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.


21 posted on 12/07/2012 1:04:02 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Bad news as the SCOTUS may rule against Prop 8 and strike down all such laws and constitutional amendments in the states.


22 posted on 12/07/2012 1:05:23 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
IIRC, 7 of the Justices are Catholic.

Six Catholic, three Jewish (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer) (although Breyer's daughter is an Episcopal priest).

23 posted on 12/07/2012 1:06:05 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
IIRC, 7 of the Justices are Catholic.

Six Catholic, three Jewish (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer) (although Breyer's daughter is an Episcopal priest).

24 posted on 12/07/2012 1:06:08 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

By the way, I wonder if Kagan and Roberts will recuse themselves.


25 posted on 12/07/2012 1:07:12 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
...on the ground that the federal government must recognize as legally married any couple who are legally married under the laws of their home state

But that still wouldn't force other states to recognize faggot "marriages" performed in faggot states.

26 posted on 12/07/2012 1:11:53 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Prediction: Justice Roberts will vote with the seat of his pants.


27 posted on 12/07/2012 1:12:54 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator

Thank you most wonderful Sidebar! :)


28 posted on 12/07/2012 1:14:46 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Don’t discount the possibility of Roberts and Kennedy joining with the Liberals on this case.

They should have simply let the lower court’s ruling on Prop 8 stand and let California be California.


29 posted on 12/07/2012 1:15:12 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

The financial aspect is a large part of it.

But another large part of it is the further destruction of traditional American and Judeo-Christian morality.

The statists hate religion and especially Christianity.

In this, many of the homosexuals are the pawns of the hardcore statists that are using the homosexual ‘cause’ to further the destruction of America. Some are aware, some are not.

Regardless, the issue is another bullet in the chest of America.

If this passes, polygamists will have a case. So will males who want to marry male cousins and brothers, and females who want to female cousins and sisters.

Remember that their argument is flawed. Before same-sex marriage, we ALL lived with the same restrictions when it came to marriage. Heterosexuals could only marry people of the opposite sex and who were legally able and consented.

Homosexuals have not been barred from marriage and they were under the same ‘rights’ and ‘restrictions’ as everyone else.

Now they are asking for EXTRA rights. In addition to being able to marry members of the opposite sex, they want to be able to marry people of the same sex.

They claim this will not cause a slippery slope.

But if there are no restrictions on marriage, then there are NO restrictions on marriage.

The homosexuals want the finances, yes, but they approach homosexual ‘rights’ the same way Obammie the Commie approaches the economy: they both want to punish the living hell out of their opponents. Winning is not enough. They want to bash our heads into the sidewalk like the drug-dealing gang-baning punk Trayvon did to Zimmerman.

And they want US to apologize to THEM for ever having opposed them.


30 posted on 12/07/2012 1:15:32 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I see nothing in the previous jurisprudence that shows this will be anything other than a 5-4 vote overturning the lower courts and upholding the laws. Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Kennedy/Alito will stick together on this one. The four others will too but will be in the minority — for now.


31 posted on 12/07/2012 1:18:07 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Correct, Kennedy will vote with the three hags and the wuss Souter.


32 posted on 12/07/2012 1:19:29 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Welcome ;-)


33 posted on 12/07/2012 1:23:43 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
But that still wouldn't force other states to recognize faggot "marriages" performed in faggot states.

No, but we will then see later cases arguing that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I don't practice family law, and I haven't researched this, but I am sure there is caselaw from back in the day when interracial marriages were illegal in some states and legal in others. I do remember learning in law school a legal maxim, "A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere."

34 posted on 12/07/2012 1:24:00 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator; I Am Not A Mod; BuckeyeTexan

Wait, I thought you and I Am Not A Mod were being held in confinement without visitors.

Is this some sort of trick?


35 posted on 12/07/2012 1:29:18 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
No, but we will then see later cases arguing that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize marriages performed in another state. I don't practice family law, and I haven't researched this, but I am sure there is caselaw from back in the day when interracial marriages were illegal in some states and legal in others. I do remember learning in law school a legal maxim, "A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere." I'm surprised that issue hasn't already come up in front of the SCOTUS, being as quite a few states have had same-sex marriage for awhile now. For instance, let's say Judy and Susie get married next week up in Seattle, and then they move to Missouri. Someone in MO says, "We don't recognize you as legally married", and J & S have their Washington State Marriage Certificate. J & S say, "Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution." Of course, inevitably, it will come up, most likely in the next five years at the latest.
36 posted on 12/07/2012 1:30:57 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

There are many arguments that can be made about this issue, but for me the biggest one is that it impinges upon the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. If gay marriage is found constitutional that how can any pastor of any church refuse to marry gays or hold gay marriages in their churches? The same would be true of any religious person who has a bakery or a photography business, etc. They will be accused of discrimination and this will open the door to all kinds of lawsuits. The right to object to being forced to do something based on the exercise of individual conscience will be gone. And even if it survives, the amount of money it will take these people to defend themselves will put them out of business. Can you imagine how the Moslems will react to this kind of thing?


37 posted on 12/07/2012 1:33:28 PM PST by CityCenter (Compromise is the welcome mat to deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
We were released in the spirit of the Christmas er, the holiday season ;-)
38 posted on 12/07/2012 1:34:55 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator; I Am Not A Mod

LOL, understood!
In case I don’t “see” either of you between now and then, Merry Christmas!


39 posted on 12/07/2012 1:39:53 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I think you’ve got it right. Your analysis was my first impression when I heard the news.

If it does result in states’ rights being upheld, what then happens with Article 4, Section 1- Full Faith & Credit?

Suppose that gay marriage is legal in MA but not in TX and that a company is incorporated in TX and doing business in both states. Do legally married gay couples receive benefits in MA but not in TX?

Louisiana does not allow gay couples to adopt. Yet a couple of years ago, the courts forced LA to amend the birth parents’ names on its vital record to reflect the legal adoption that took place in NY. (IMHO, NY should have had to issue a birth certificate. LA should not have to amend its vital records to reflect an adoption that is illegal in LA.) How do you see that situation playing out under the predicted ruling?


40 posted on 12/07/2012 1:40:28 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

This way, they can make every state recognize their abomination, not just California.


41 posted on 12/07/2012 1:42:33 PM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

IMHO, only churches should have the right to “wed” people (a man and a woman). The State should give civil union licenses, instead. That’s just my opinion.


42 posted on 12/07/2012 1:42:50 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare; Sidebar Moderator; I Am Not A Mod

Rumor has it that Sidebar is an expert in Jedi Mind Tricks.


43 posted on 12/07/2012 1:48:23 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vision

That is a scary thought.


44 posted on 12/07/2012 1:50:37 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

We’d still end up with the same issues regarding benefits.


45 posted on 12/07/2012 1:53:05 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter
There are many arguments that can be made about this issue, but for me the biggest one is that it impinges upon the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. If gay marriage is found constitutional that how can any pastor of any church refuse to marry gays or hold gay marriages in their churches?

That will never happen, even if SCOTUS holds there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. No case has ever required a Catholic priest to marry someone who has a civil divorce but not a church annulment. No case has ever required an orthodox Rabbi to marry a Jew and a non-Jew. If there is a right to gay marriage, it is a right to a civil marriage and to a marriage in any church willing to do it.

The same would be true of any religious person who has a bakery or a photography business, etc. They will be accused of discrimination and this will open the door to all kinds of lawsuits.

That is a different issue. A few states have already had lawsuits on that basis, where state civil rights laws forbid discrimination against gays in "public accommodations." I think those cases are wrong, but your fear is much more likely to materialize there.

46 posted on 12/07/2012 1:56:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

what a friggin few years we have had!


47 posted on 12/07/2012 1:57:05 PM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Well looks like all states will have to follow the upcoming Supreme Court ruling so I think gay couples and straight couples should be granted civil union licenses. If a civil union doesn’t work out, then the state can dissolve it. Marriage, however, should belong to the realm of the Church. That way, we can still defend marriage.


48 posted on 12/07/2012 1:58:56 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

this should be Roberts opportunity to come out


49 posted on 12/07/2012 2:00:03 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

The right of churches to “opt out” has been destroyed via healthcare.

The road to hell has been carefully and deviously paved by liberals.


50 posted on 12/07/2012 2:00:03 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson